FROM

Using animals to conduct safety testing is flawed
science, because differences between species, and even between animals in
the same species, lead to unreliable test results due to variances in
absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of chemicals.

Since 1992, Ecco Bella has been known as a pioneer in the natural beauty
field. Back then, it was virtually impossible to find organic materials for
our products, but Ecco Bella persisted. The company supports ethical farmers
and strives to offer products that are a delight to see, smell and use.
Visit Ecco Bella.

Developed and researched by a Holistic Skin Care Expert of over 25 years,
Sevani Botanica™ contains a "special blend" of rare, high-potency organic
nutrients to visibly repair and protect skin, and restore radiance while
being gentle enough for the most sensitive of skin types. Visit Sevani
Botanica.

The testing of cosmetic products and their component ingredients is one
of the most obvious examples of unnecessary harm we impose on animals. The
Draize Eye Test, developed in 1944, is used to assess eye irritation caused
by various chemicals — often in cosmetics. Typically, rabbits are used; they
suffer from redness, bleeding, ulcers, and even blindness. Rabbits, rats and
mice are also used in skin-irritancy testing, observed for signs of
irritation such as swelling, itching, soreness and inflammation.

Using animals to conduct safety testing is flawed science, because
differences between species, and even between animals in the same species,
lead to unreliable test results due to variances in absorption,
distribution, metabolism and excretion of chemicals.

Yet there is an enormous array of alternative test methods to replace
live animal tests for cosmetic products and ingredients.

One alternative developed years ago, and widely accepted by regulatory
agencies, is the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability test, which uses
cornea tissue, a slaughterhouse byproduct, in place of live rabbits. The
tissue is treated with a sample chemical and then light is transmitted
through it. An undamaged cornea remains virtually transparent, whereas those
affected by a test substance will appear opaque. The cornea is also tested
to see if a fluorescent compound is able to permeate the tissue. These
measurements determine the level of irritation.1

Fortunately, science is now relying more on in vitro methods,
including the Cytosensor Microphysiometer test, which measures changes in
the cell growth rate after exposure to test substances. A decrease in
metabolism indicates irritancy. 2 Another irritancy test is EpiOcular™, a
cornea model consisting of normal, human-derived cells forming a
multi-layered structure that closely resembles a normal corneal epithelium.
3 After applying substances to the tissue model, scientists measure the
number of cells killed to determine the potential for irritation.4

There are also reliable skin iritation and corrosion testing models. For
example, cosmetic giant L’Oreal teamed up with SkinEthic to develop Episkin,
an in vitro reconstructed epidermis made from normal human cells collected
from consenting donors during plastic surgery.5 Another human cell culture,
EpiDerm, replaces animals in skin irritation tests. In both models, test
substances are placed on the culture and observed to see if the chemicals
penetrate the outer skin and if so, how many cells die in the process.6 This
determines the level of potential skin damage or irritation.

The availability and use of alternatives that spare living animals in
cosmetic testing has grown largely due to consumer and company demand.
Moreover, new regulatory requirements in the European Union established a
ban on the sale of cosmetics (and their ingredients) that have been tested
on animals. In today’s global economy, companies based in other countries
depend on profits from European markets. This dependence will inevitably
require these companies to more aggressively pursue non-animal alternatives
for cosmetic testing.

Will Europe’s Law Have Loopholes?

Due to concern that Europe's new regulations banning animal testing on
cosmetics may contain loopholes, The American Anti-Vivisection Society
recommends reliance on third-party cruelty-free certification through
LeapingBunny.org. For more information on these regulations, please visit
LeapingBunny

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.